Taylor v. Blair

• Decision Date: 31 March 1851
• Citation: 14 Mo. 437
• Parties: GEORGE R. TAYLOR ET AL. v. MONTGOMERY BLAIR ET AL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

14 Mo. 437

GEORGE R. TAYLOR ET AL.

v.MONTGOMERY BLAIR ET AL.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1851.

ERROR TO ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.

MUNFORD, for Appellants. 1. Lapse of time cannot be taken advantage of on demurrer. 2. There must be extraordinary negligence for time to run against a fraud. 3. It will not run in favor of a trustee until the trust is clearly at an end. 4. A party who acquires the legal title with notice of a prior equity will hold the same as trustee, and a court of equity will decree his title to the equitable owner. 5. An agent or attorney cannot purchase on his own account, that which he was empowered and employed to purchase for his principal. The cases in 4 Howard, and the authorities there cited are full on this point. 6. Paul acquired at the sheriff's sale such a title as a court of equity will protect.

BLAIR, for Defendants. In support of the decree of the Circuit Court, in dismissing complainants' bill, the defendants insist: 1. That the claim, as presented by the bill, is a stale claim and such a case as courts of equity will not relieve. Delave v. Delave, 7 Bro. P. C., by Timelus, 279; 1 Car. Law R. 508; 3 Mur. 583; 1 Rus. & Myl. 236, 523; 2 Hawk. 669; 1 Coxe's Cases, 28; 4 Dessau. 91; 2 Vesey, Jr. 90; Law of Mo. 1849, p. 74, § 4. 2. That it appears by the bill, that the claim is bound by the statute of limitations. 3 Yerger, 201, 4 Man. & Hen. 139; 1 Rand. 284; 4 Wash. C. C. 631. 3. The statute of limitations, applicable to this case, is that which would apply to an action for damages for the usage here complained. 4. No trust is stated in the bill. It is said that Magenis was a trustee for Paul, with respect to the land sued for, but the facts stated in the bill, warrant no such inference, but the contrary. 2 Sugden on Vendors, 139, and cases therein cited; 2 Johns. Ch. R. 409. As to amendments of a bill, Mitford, 215 to 275.

BIRCH, J.

In this case the bill states the plaintiffs are the sole heirs of Gabriel Paul, who died in 1845, being the equitable owner of a lot on Main street, in block No. 16, containing twenty feet front by seventy-five feet deep, in the ciiy of St. Louis. By way of demonstrating their title in equity, as thus alleged, the bill traces the legal title back to one Thulegon, against whom, in June, 1821, Paul recovered a judgment for $18 07, under execution upon which, and other cotemporaneous judgments, the lot was sold by the sheriff on the 5th of September following, and Paul became the purchaser of it and of three others, for the aggregate sum of twenty-six dollars

The bill then proceeds to state, for the relief of debtor and creditor, the sheriff gave to Paul a certificate of purchase, a duplicate whereof having been filed and recorded is made an exhibit in the bill. It is further stated that the lot was never redeemed--that there remained a large balance on the judgment of Paul, which, some eighteen months after the sale aforesaid he transferred to Bryant & Schlater, of Philadelphia; that after the time to redeem the property had expired, Paul discovered legal difficulties in the way of getting a deed, and employed Arthur L. Magenis, Esq., as his attorney to have the sale perfected and get him a proper deed--giving the said Magenis the sheriff's certificate of sale for that purchase. It is next alleged in the bill that the said Magenis, who was an attorney at law, acting in bad faith toward his client (Paul), and forming a design to get said lot on his own account, procured an alias execution to issue on Paul's judgment against Thulegon--the record not showing its assignment to Bryant & Schlater--under which, in August, 1829, the lot in question was again sold, and being bid off by Magenis for $150, he fraudulently procured a deed to be made to himself, although acting as the attorney of said Paul. It is afterwards stated that Magenis settled with Bryant & Schlater for the sum of his said bill; but it is alleged that Paul, in his lifetime, offered to pay it back to him, together with interest, cost and charges, and that his heirs (the complainants here) yet offer to do so. It is further and finally charged in the bill, that in 1830 Magenis again purchased said lot at execution sale, for the sum of $17, as being the property of one Sanguinette, notwithstanding he had sold all his interest in it to Thulegon in 1820; and this is alleged to have been done fraudulently, for the mere purpose of still more complicating the difficulties in the way of procuring a title by Paul--in consideration of which the bill prays appropriate relief.

Blair, a trustee under the will, and the two infant children of Magenis, are made parties to the suit, the object of which is to perfect and confirm the title acquired by virtue of Paul's purchase at the sheriff's sale in September, 1821, and that the subsequent purchases of Magenis be held and decreed to have been made for Paul, his client and principal.

The defendants demurred--were sustained--and the bill dismissed. The plaintiffs asked leave to amend, but the court refused permission, unless they would state (whi...